In a recent decision by the Gujarat High Court, a pivotal ruling was made in the case of Applicant vs. State. The court’s judgment regarding the bail application is poised to have significant implications in the legal landscape. Let’s delve into the details of this noteworthy case and explore the implications of this ruling.
Arguments
- The bail application of the applicant is entertained and he may be enlarged on bail.
- The applicant is permitted to file his Vakalatnama in the Registry.
- The application is filed after the submission of the charge-sheet.
- The applicant was previously enlarged on bail for the same FIR.
- The State filed an application for the cancellation of bail, citing a breach of conditions.
- The applicant approached the Court with an application which was withdrawn as the Court was disinclined to consider it.
- The present application is based on a change of circumstances.
- An identically situated person’s case reached the Hon’ble Apex Court where bail was granted to the co-accused.
- Advocate Mr. A. A. Ansari appears on behalf of the original complainant.
- The application is for regular bail in connection with a specific criminal case.
- The nature of the offence is considered in the bail plea.
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 29.12.2023.
- Learned APP representing the respondent-State has adopted the arguments presented by learned advocate Mr. Ansari for the original complainant.
- The learned APP contends that based on the factual aspects presented, the applicant should not be granted bail.
- Both parties’ advocates do not seek a detailed order.
- Mr. Ansari, the complainant’s advocate, strongly opposes the current application and highlights the registration of another offense against the applicant during these proceedings as a reason for denying bail.
Analysis
- Applicant has been in jail since 29.12.2023.
- Applicant was previously granted bail but it was cancelled by the Sessions Court due to a breach of condition.
- The Hon’ble Apex Court has granted bail to a co-accused with an identical case to the present applicant.
- Considering these factors, the application for bail is being considered.
- The Court considered the law laid down in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2012]1 SCC 40 and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [2022)10 SCC 51.
- The nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR was taken into consideration.
- Without discussing the evidence in detail, the Court found prima facie basis in the case.
- The Court considers this case suitable for granting regular bail.
- The Court exercises its discretion to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
Decision
- The application for bail has been allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail.
- The bail amount is set at Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount.
- Various conditions have been imposed on the applicant upon release on bail.
- The trial court should not be influenced by any preliminary observations made by this court while granting bail.
- The conditions of bail may be modified or relaxed by the concerned court in accordance with the law.
- Certain specific conditions include not misusing liberty, surrendering passport within a week, marking presence at the police station every alternate Monday, providing current address to the Investigating Officer and the court, and not entering Panchmahal District except for court appearances.
- Release of the applicant is subject to him not being required in connection with any other offence at the time.
Case Title: IMRAN SHAUKAT RASULBHAI @ MASALIYA @ UMRAN DORVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/9072/2024
